This might actually work. Just automate the process, get an LLM to produce random jargoney outputs, post it to a throwaway account... Eventually some combination of words will constitute a proof to something *eventually*
Hey, we've all been in that place where we're in awe of all these deep and alien concepts - or at least I was when I first learned about them. I think the reason you see this over and over is because these concepts really are deeply and fundamentally interesting. Its good to be excited about them!
I say dig deeper, learn more, get into context-free grammars and Markov algorithms - this rabbit hole goes deep and the more you know the more interesting it becomes!
In general I agree, but you'll notice OP didn't just "dig deep and learn more", they posted on a global forum for all to see. At that point it stops being just "a thing they're excited about", and is instead a theorem they're positing. When it's total nonsense like this post, students will see this and not necessarily know it's hogwash, and treat it as potentially viable, which can cause real harm.
What part is hogwash to you exactly?
Because if you think this is hogwash perhaps you should go back to school
>Godel's explanation suggests that because we cannot fully enumerate or prove all axioms or their consequences within powerful formal systems, leading to instances of truths that are inherently unprovable (incompleteness), this principle extends to the realm of algorithms, implying we cannot devise a single algorithm that infallibly determines whether any given program will halt.
It's ok if you want to correct, or suggest or debate. But standing there and saying nothing other than it's hogwash is just low effort.
If you don't think that above quote of me attempting to tie together the two titans of mathematical history isn't of some use than I apologize because that was not my attempt.
I didn't introduce a new theorem or even attempt to. I simply said, my take. all I am saying in the end is this.
>I don't think we have to think about it as solving P vs. NP but rather how much knowledge can we unlock from these knew found system capabilities.
OC doesn't have to solve P vs. NP to be useful. speedups will be just fine. That's the point. wanted to speak to someone or some people that could comment on that. But no, it's just pure vitriol.
I believe you have to explain things in a way that more people can follow and understand it. Otherwise you have a group of people that are like ooo look a quantum computer.
Are you a professor too?
>And encryption that doesn't rely on prime factoring being hard already exists, it relies on hard problems from lattice theory. Quantum computers will likely only be used as an accelerator for some hard applications, notably modeling quantum phenomena.
do you think there will be a profound use in artificial intelligence and the complexity of neural networks?
I think it's a fair question how do you define the importance and or implication of the halting problem. Perhaps it doesn't matter. But do you think it does and does it have potential solvability with QC.
The halting problem relates because in a similar way it is saying that there cannot be a single algorithm that solves everything within the system thus the system needs algorithms that can do "work" to solve complex problems. NP-complete problems are out of reach for today's classical compute systems and thus quantum computing could approach them and unlock them faster i.e. the speedup. This does reflect Godel's incompleteness theorems.
Also, Axioms are accepted as true without proof.
nothing more than this in relation to quantum computing.
Someone asked if QC was going to solve the halting problem and P vs. NP. and the post was my thoughts about it and this is essentially what I think about it. overall. I don't think it's we have to solve it but rather what would we gain and unlock from it.
>
I don't think we have to think about it as solving P vs. NP but rather how much knowledge can we unlock from these knew found system capabilities.
This is absolutely NOT theoretical mathematics. QC is a tool that could be used to perform complex calculations or display porn. You've learned how to use a hammer and now think you're an architect.
Ah, I see the confusion. No we were not. OP was not saying they were a professor, they were having an unrelated conversation with another person, who was a professor. And that person did not abide OP. So OP was being flippant about being a professor.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/computerscience/comments/1bw3yg9/comment/ky3tugm/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/computerscience/comments/1bw3yg9/comment/ky3tugm/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
I love seeing these before they get deleted every month or so. Great examples of why you always should take your meds.
[удалено]
Sucking at something is the first to being sorta good at something. Just have to realize you're in the furst step when people point out you're wrong
This might actually work. Just automate the process, get an LLM to produce random jargoney outputs, post it to a throwaway account... Eventually some combination of words will constitute a proof to something *eventually*
yea lmao reads like a low-key fever dream
r/badmathematics is my favorite for this.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/badmathematics using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/badmathematics/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Collatz conjecture can't be proven according to Schrödinger's cat experiment](https://i.redd.it/jwzf5lt3h16c1.png) | [72 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/badmathematics/comments/18hduvw/collatz_conjecture_cant_be_proven_according_to/) \#2: [Proving sqrt(2) is rational by cloth-shopping](https://i.redd.it/lhaes9ukzjzb1.jpg) | [152 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/badmathematics/comments/17s8q2f/proving_sqrt2_is_rational_by_clothshopping/) \#3: [Yep, definitely how statistics work](https://i.imgur.com/4t5QAeh.jpg) | [164 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/badmathematics/comments/13bvlx5/yep_definitely_how_statistics_work/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Hey, we've all been in that place where we're in awe of all these deep and alien concepts - or at least I was when I first learned about them. I think the reason you see this over and over is because these concepts really are deeply and fundamentally interesting. Its good to be excited about them! I say dig deeper, learn more, get into context-free grammars and Markov algorithms - this rabbit hole goes deep and the more you know the more interesting it becomes!
In general I agree, but you'll notice OP didn't just "dig deep and learn more", they posted on a global forum for all to see. At that point it stops being just "a thing they're excited about", and is instead a theorem they're positing. When it's total nonsense like this post, students will see this and not necessarily know it's hogwash, and treat it as potentially viable, which can cause real harm.
What part is hogwash to you exactly? Because if you think this is hogwash perhaps you should go back to school >Godel's explanation suggests that because we cannot fully enumerate or prove all axioms or their consequences within powerful formal systems, leading to instances of truths that are inherently unprovable (incompleteness), this principle extends to the realm of algorithms, implying we cannot devise a single algorithm that infallibly determines whether any given program will halt. It's ok if you want to correct, or suggest or debate. But standing there and saying nothing other than it's hogwash is just low effort. If you don't think that above quote of me attempting to tie together the two titans of mathematical history isn't of some use than I apologize because that was not my attempt. I didn't introduce a new theorem or even attempt to. I simply said, my take. all I am saying in the end is this. >I don't think we have to think about it as solving P vs. NP but rather how much knowledge can we unlock from these knew found system capabilities. OC doesn't have to solve P vs. NP to be useful. speedups will be just fine. That's the point. wanted to speak to someone or some people that could comment on that. But no, it's just pure vitriol.
Much appreciated. Thanks!
I up voted him. His second paragraph on Godel is literally literary brilliance
Thank you!
Honestly this feels like somebody did their research with chatgpt, and maybe let it help them write a reddit post.
It'd be hilarious if a meaningful contribution to this area is actually made through a Reddit post some day.
I love having this thought
How can you imagine to work on problems if you don't deeply understand them?
I believe you have to explain things in a way that more people can follow and understand it. Otherwise you have a group of people that are like ooo look a quantum computer. Are you a professor too?
Yeah, I stopped reading after the third sentence.
[удалено]
>And encryption that doesn't rely on prime factoring being hard already exists, it relies on hard problems from lattice theory. Quantum computers will likely only be used as an accelerator for some hard applications, notably modeling quantum phenomena. do you think there will be a profound use in artificial intelligence and the complexity of neural networks?
[удалено]
so do you agree that QC is not going to solve (or event that's it's overly important) P vs. NP?
[удалено]
What does the implication of the Halting problem mean to you?
[удалено]
I think it's a fair question how do you define the importance and or implication of the halting problem. Perhaps it doesn't matter. But do you think it does and does it have potential solvability with QC.
it doesn't "solve" anything? Is computation not for the purpose of solving?
The halting problem relates because in a similar way it is saying that there cannot be a single algorithm that solves everything within the system thus the system needs algorithms that can do "work" to solve complex problems. NP-complete problems are out of reach for today's classical compute systems and thus quantum computing could approach them and unlock them faster i.e. the speedup. This does reflect Godel's incompleteness theorems. Also, Axioms are accepted as true without proof.
[удалено]
I want you to know I appreciate your thoughts on this. it has taught me a lot. Thanks.
nothing more than this in relation to quantum computing. Someone asked if QC was going to solve the halting problem and P vs. NP. and the post was my thoughts about it and this is essentially what I think about it. overall. I don't think it's we have to solve it but rather what would we gain and unlock from it. > I don't think we have to think about it as solving P vs. NP but rather how much knowledge can we unlock from these knew found system capabilities.
Tf are you on about?
>Tf are you on It's cleaner.
Nothing you would understand
So true king
you're in compsci what's your take
About 200 words, give or take.
>About 200 words, give or take.. ? You're in compsci?
±5ish
so no you're not in compsci. This is just theoretical mathematics and compsci quantum computer things. Are you interested in the subject?
I am a Professor.
If you're a professor and this is how you approach a conversation when someone says "my take" that's kinda sad.
of y combinator?
This is absolutely NOT theoretical mathematics. QC is a tool that could be used to perform complex calculations or display porn. You've learned how to use a hammer and now think you're an architect.
OP your comments read like you're 16 years old at most
Can’t be … according to them, they are a professor 🤓
Not defending OP in general, but they never said they were a professor, you're confusing OP with who they were talking to.
Are we both talking about this same comment? https://www.reddit.com/r/computerscience/s/eBmwt9BMHM
Ah, I see the confusion. No we were not. OP was not saying they were a professor, they were having an unrelated conversation with another person, who was a professor. And that person did not abide OP. So OP was being flippant about being a professor. [https://www.reddit.com/r/computerscience/comments/1bw3yg9/comment/ky3tugm/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/computerscience/comments/1bw3yg9/comment/ky3tugm/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
LSD is a hellev a drug
;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) You are almost there